Further info on the proposal for seperate schools
Discussion
'The Economist' has the best summation of the whole issue.
It's the natives, not the immigrants, that are the problem
WHITE people tend to be nervous of raising the subject of race and education, but are often voluble on the issue if a black person brings it up. So when Trevor Phillips, chairman of Britain's Commission for Racial Equality, said that there was a particular problem with black boys' performance at school, and that it might be a good idea to educate them apart from other pupils, there was a torrent of comment. Some of it commended his proposal, and some criticised it, but none of it questioned its premise. Everybody accepts that black boys are a problem.
On the face of it, it looks as though Mr Phillips is right. Only 27% of Afro-Caribbean boys get five A-C grades at GCSE, the exams taken by 16-year-olds, compared with 47% of boys as a whole and 44% of Afro-Caribbean girls. Since, in some subjects, candidates who score less than 50% get Cs, those who don't reach this threshold have picked up pretty little at school.
Mr Phillips's suggestion that black boys should be taught separately implies that ethnicity and gender explain their underachievement. Certainly, maleness seems to be a disadvantage at school. That's true for all ethnic groups: 57% of girls as a whole get five A-Cs, compared with 47% of boys. But it's not so clear that blackness is at the root of the problem.
Among children as a whole, Afro-Caribbeans do indeed perform badly. But Afro-Caribbeans tend to be poor. So to get a better idea of whether race, rather than poverty, is the problem, one must control for economic status. The only way to do that, given the limits of British educational statistics, is to separate out the exam results of children who get free school meals: only the poor get free grub.
Poor children's results tell a rather different story (see article). Afro-Caribbeans still do remarkably badly, but whites are at the bottom of the pile. All ethnic minority groups do better than them. Even Bangladeshis, a pretty deprived lot, do twice as well as the natives in their exams; Indians and Chinese do better still. And absolute numbers of underperforming whites dwarf those of underperforming Afro-Caribbeans: last year, 131,393 of white boys failed to hit the government's benchmark, compared with 3,151 Afro-Caribbean boys.
These figures suggest that, at school at least, black people's problem is not so much race as poverty. And they undermine the idea of teaching black boys separately, for if poor whites are doing worse than poor blacks, there's not much argument for singling out blacks for special measures: whites need help just as badly.
It's a nice thought
This isn't, however, a message that anybody much wants to hear. Many white people find the idea that there's something fundamentally wrong with black people comforting: it confirms deeply held prejudices and reassures them that a whole complex of social problems—starting with underachievement in schools, but leading on to unemployment, drug addiction and crime—is nothing to do with them.
The race-relations industry also has an interest in explaining educational underachievement in terms of ethnicity. A whole raft of committees, commissions and task forces has been set up on the assumption that racial differences are a fundamental cause of social problems. If that's wrong, then all those worthies might as well pack up and go home.
Trying to explain educational underachievement away as a racial issue may be comforting and convenient, but it is also dangerous, for it distracts attention from the real problem—that the school system fails the poor. That's not a black problem or a white problem: it's a British problem.
It's the natives, not the immigrants, that are the problem
WHITE people tend to be nervous of raising the subject of race and education, but are often voluble on the issue if a black person brings it up. So when Trevor Phillips, chairman of Britain's Commission for Racial Equality, said that there was a particular problem with black boys' performance at school, and that it might be a good idea to educate them apart from other pupils, there was a torrent of comment. Some of it commended his proposal, and some criticised it, but none of it questioned its premise. Everybody accepts that black boys are a problem.
On the face of it, it looks as though Mr Phillips is right. Only 27% of Afro-Caribbean boys get five A-C grades at GCSE, the exams taken by 16-year-olds, compared with 47% of boys as a whole and 44% of Afro-Caribbean girls. Since, in some subjects, candidates who score less than 50% get Cs, those who don't reach this threshold have picked up pretty little at school.
Mr Phillips's suggestion that black boys should be taught separately implies that ethnicity and gender explain their underachievement. Certainly, maleness seems to be a disadvantage at school. That's true for all ethnic groups: 57% of girls as a whole get five A-Cs, compared with 47% of boys. But it's not so clear that blackness is at the root of the problem.
Among children as a whole, Afro-Caribbeans do indeed perform badly. But Afro-Caribbeans tend to be poor. So to get a better idea of whether race, rather than poverty, is the problem, one must control for economic status. The only way to do that, given the limits of British educational statistics, is to separate out the exam results of children who get free school meals: only the poor get free grub.
Poor children's results tell a rather different story (see article). Afro-Caribbeans still do remarkably badly, but whites are at the bottom of the pile. All ethnic minority groups do better than them. Even Bangladeshis, a pretty deprived lot, do twice as well as the natives in their exams; Indians and Chinese do better still. And absolute numbers of underperforming whites dwarf those of underperforming Afro-Caribbeans: last year, 131,393 of white boys failed to hit the government's benchmark, compared with 3,151 Afro-Caribbean boys.
These figures suggest that, at school at least, black people's problem is not so much race as poverty. And they undermine the idea of teaching black boys separately, for if poor whites are doing worse than poor blacks, there's not much argument for singling out blacks for special measures: whites need help just as badly.
It's a nice thought
This isn't, however, a message that anybody much wants to hear. Many white people find the idea that there's something fundamentally wrong with black people comforting: it confirms deeply held prejudices and reassures them that a whole complex of social problems—starting with underachievement in schools, but leading on to unemployment, drug addiction and crime—is nothing to do with them.
The race-relations industry also has an interest in explaining educational underachievement in terms of ethnicity. A whole raft of committees, commissions and task forces has been set up on the assumption that racial differences are a fundamental cause of social problems. If that's wrong, then all those worthies might as well pack up and go home.
Trying to explain educational underachievement away as a racial issue may be comforting and convenient, but it is also dangerous, for it distracts attention from the real problem—that the school system fails the poor. That's not a black problem or a white problem: it's a British problem.
Certainly poverty and other domestic factors (single parent etc.) correlate highly with school performance, however the fact that afro caribb males do SO MUCH worse than their female counterparts seems to blow the argument out of the water in the first instance.
Or do only poor people have boys?
Or do only poor people have boys?
funkihamsta said:
Certainly poverty and other domestic factors (single parent etc.) correlate highly with school performance, however the fact that afro caribb males do SO MUCH worse than their female counterparts seems to blow the argument out of the water in the first instance.
Or do only poor people have boys?
I believe their argument is that poor boys who are both white and Black do very poorly at school.
Interesting article, Jaglover.
However, one should also bear in mind that an astronomically higher proportion of young black males are involved in crime - particularly violent crime.
Indeed, more young balck males in the UK go to Prison than go to University.
This is the problem that the PC establishment has shied away from for fear of being branded racist, and the black community has totally failed to acknowledge and address.
However, one should also bear in mind that an astronomically higher proportion of young black males are involved in crime - particularly violent crime.
Indeed, more young balck males in the UK go to Prison than go to University.
This is the problem that the PC establishment has shied away from for fear of being branded racist, and the black community has totally failed to acknowledge and address.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
True
What are the solutions though?-In both the UK and Usa this phenonom is closely linked to the virtual collapse of the two parent black household-how can you legislate for people to remain committed to a long term relationship.
I think one big problem is, as the article mentions, the poor achievemnt of low income boys at school.
This to my mind is linked with two big issues-Lack of disclipline at schools and the decision of the educational establishment to abandon phonics.
hedders said:
I would be interested to know how Black Boys in Private schools compare to white boys in private school.
One would think that they would do ok, ruling out the whole ethnicity thing and putting the blame squarely on the kids upbringing.
>> Edited by hedders on Monday 14th March 14:17
There was an interesting experiment a while back-it was mentioned in the Telegraph and may have been on TV.
They took a black Kid who wasn't doing that well at school, in trouble etc-and paid for his private school fees. I think he was doing well, but unfortunatly was expelled after a while (after a change of headmaster) for something relatively minor.
Am always suspicous of these stats which attempt to aportion educational ability to a persons ethnic origin.
Surely if this was the case, then Indians and Chinese would be equally disadvantaged.
However, the simple facts are that both these ethnic groups not only out perform blacks, Pakistanis & Bangladeshis, but also, youve guessed it, the indegenious white population.
Whilst I dont doubt that there are certain disadvantages, surely there comes a time when the black community as a whole has to put up its collective arm and accept responsibility for its own inadequacies, as opposed to blaming the "culture" in which they live. Until they do so, then there predicament is only going to deteriorate and gun crime, drugs, single parentdom etc is going to escalate.
Surely if this was the case, then Indians and Chinese would be equally disadvantaged.
However, the simple facts are that both these ethnic groups not only out perform blacks, Pakistanis & Bangladeshis, but also, youve guessed it, the indegenious white population.
Whilst I dont doubt that there are certain disadvantages, surely there comes a time when the black community as a whole has to put up its collective arm and accept responsibility for its own inadequacies, as opposed to blaming the "culture" in which they live. Until they do so, then there predicament is only going to deteriorate and gun crime, drugs, single parentdom etc is going to escalate.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff